How is Mario a rehash series?

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

1) Well, it is your opinion that the story should always be the primary focus of the game. This opinion of yours does not change the fact that there has been pretty substantial gameplay differences between the Mario games. And even if you think that the story should always be the primary focus on a game, the story is not the primary focus in Mario games and thus it not fair to judge growth and evolution solely by looking at the story.

2) You treat the transition to 3D as if it's no big deal or something. And even if we go by your "it's was just in 3D premise", you're still wrong. In the 3D Mario games, the player collects stars in a 3D playing field by completing certain goals within the level. In the 2D Mario games, players simply made their way to end of a linear sidescrolling level. That in itself is a monumental shift.

3) Why would Nintendo make an M-rated Mario game? That'd be dumb.

Tragic_Kingdom7

1) though it is my opinion that the story should always come first, a game without a story or a poor story gets stale and boring (unless it's action packed and makes you forget the lack of story *cough* gears *cough*).

2) at the time, the shift to 3d was big. the n64 was nintendo's first console to play game in 3d. that was actually the biggest selling point of sm 64. btw, it was more than completing goals in a level. some stars required you to collect a certain amount of red and blue coins in any level to get the star. others you had to look for because they were hidden. if you collected 120 stars, a cannon in the front lawn of the castle would come out of the ground. if you point the cannon in the right location and fire, you can find yoshi on top of the castle. i never got the 120 stars. i got stuck at 117.

3)well nintendo is all for expanding the user-base, why not make an m-rated mario?

1) I think the fact that you make an exception for Gears and not Mario is kind of weird. I mean, Mario is action-packed in its own way, so why not make an exception for it as well? It makes more sense to excuse both because they both don't focus on story.

2)I know there was alot more to it than simply completing goals in level, but that proves my point. :P

3) An M-rated Mario would be awkward. It wouldn't gel right with Mario conceptually. I don't think developers should make things M rated for the sake of it. It has to make sense.

1) i guess it just boils down to tastes.

2)i haven't played the game in almost 10 years but i remember it like it was yesterday.

3)that didn't stop nintendo from making that atrocious live-action mario movie in the 90's.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

Did it really get alot of hate? If anybody gave it hate, that's going overboard.I though it was just seen as not achieving the perfection of Mario 64, which I'd agree with. Super Mario Sunshine was easily the worst 3D Mario game. It's an excellent game, but not nearly as good as 64 or Galaxy.

Tragic_Kingdom7

i think it had more to do with using a water cannon to clean the world of pollution. it just seemed like a huge detraction that didn't payoff. but i do see the irony in it. the first time nintendo tries to make a mario game that isn't centered around saving the princess, the loyalists complain. but when they continue to use the same premise/story, then other people, like myself, call out rehash.

If loyalists were really hating on it because of the water pack, thatonlyre-affirms my milddislike ofhardcore loyalists in general. I mean, as fan of many things, I have no problem with fans. But hardcore loyalists need to be more open-minded.

they really can't be open minded. it's almost as if they have a cult mentality. hell look at the fanboys in system wars. i really haven't been interested in mario games in years. i guess i moved on and developed different tastes in games.

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

let me explain. for the past 25 years, since the introduction of mario bros., the games formula has always bee the same - explore a world looking for the princess (originally peach but there is also another princess) and defeat Bowser/King Koopa to set her free. nintndo never really tried to change this formula. they never changed the story to a point where peach gets pissed and kills bowser herself and then slaps mario for taking too long. when mario made the transition from 2d to 3d in super mario 64, this formula was still used unchanged. the only thing that changed was the graphics and the addition of new enemies. smg just put mario in space but the formula remains unchanged. that what is meant with the rundown house analogy. they can change the graphics and locations (new paint) but the formula/story remains the same for 25 years unchanged (derelict house). the physics in smg can be considered a new coat of paint unless it changes the story. this however never happens in any game so it's just another nice addition.

cowgriller

let me explain. for the past 25 years, since the introduction of football games, the games formula has always been the same - try to take the football from one end of the endzone to another while also trying to prevent the opposing team from doing so. they never really change the story so john madden can go on an epic adventure through the deep dark forest, across the seven seas and all the way through space in an attempt to save his daughter from death. instead its just the same ol keep winning football games so you can get the super bowl trophy.

hint: some games aren't story focused.

wait, your tring to compare an action/platformer to a sports game? btw, there have been football games that change the formula. NFL Blitz. that was until the EA monopoly.

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

mario has to be sinle-handedly, the most MILKED character in gaming history. he has appeared in several rehash titles and spin-offs. to be exact, over 200 GAMES FEATURE MARIO. that kind of milkage could drain a cow dry. here's a list of every game mario has ever been in.

LIST (too damn big for me to post here).

cowgriller

Holy crap. That's alot of freaking milkage, but as I said earlier, atleast theyhave kept themain franchise fresh.

the main franchise has always been the same. find the princess because she's been kidnapped again. there's really not much nintendo can do for the franchise. essentially what nintendo is doing for the main franchise is giving a rundown house a new coat of paint. sure the paint makes it look a little better, but it doesn't fix the main problems of the house. the house can still fall given enough time or or a strong breeze.

No, no, no, no, no. 100% wrong. They are not coats of paint, they are redefining the gameplay at its core every time. Mario games are not like PS3/360 action games which are essentially last gen games but prettier.

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

1) though it is my opinion that the story should always come first, a game without a story or a poor story gets stale and boring (unless it's action packed and makes you forget the lack of story *cough* gears *cough*).

2) at the time, the shift to 3d was big. the n64 was nintendo's first console to play game in 3d. that was actually the biggest selling point of sm 64. btw, it was more than completing goals in a level. some stars required you to collect a certain amount of red and blue coins in any level to get the star. others you had to look for because they were hidden. if you collected 120 stars, a cannon in the front lawn of the castle would come out of the ground. if you point the cannon in the right location and fire, you can find yoshi on top of the castle. i never got the 120 stars. i got stuck at 117.

3)well nintendo is all for expanding the user-base, why not make an m-rated mario?

cowgriller

1) I think the fact that you make an exception for Gears and not Mario is kind of weird. I mean, Mario is action-packed in its own way, so why not make an exception for it as well? It makes more sense to excuse both because they both don't focus on story.

2)I know there was alot more to it than simply completing goals in level, but that proves my point. :P

3) An M-rated Mario would be awkward. It wouldn't gel right with Mario conceptually. I don't think developers should make things M rated for the sake of it. It has to make sense.

1) i guess it just boils down to tastes.

2)i haven't played the game in almost 10 years but i remember it like it was yesterday.

3)that didn't stop nintendo from making that atrocious live-action mario movie in the 90's.

Oh God. I remember that movie. It was SO bad. Everything about it was so ugly and awkward.

But that movie really does prove why changing the tone of Mario doesn't really work.

That movie wasn't really "M-rated" material, so you can see how going even farther and makinga Mario game with mature content in it would be even more awkward.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]rofl... wow...

let me explain. for the past 25 years, since the introduction of football games, the games formula has always been the same - try to take the football from one end of the endzone to another while also trying to prevent the opposing team from doing so. they never really change the story so john madden can go on an epic adventure through the deep dark forest, across the seven seas and all the way through space in an attempt to save his daughter from death. instead its just the same ol keep winning football games so you can get the super bowl trophy.

hint: some games aren't story focused.

Silenthps

wait, your tring to compare an action/platformer to a sports game? btw, there have been football games that change the formula. NFL Blitz. that was until the EA monopoly.

actually, your logic is faulty. sports games aren't about the story, hence why most of them don't have one. they are about playing the sport on a tv rather than going outside to play them in real life. btw, NFl Blitz was different than the madden games in that it was centered about breaking bones and having fun injuring the competition, not just scoring touchdowns.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

Holy crap. That's alot of freaking milkage, but as I said earlier, atleast theyhave kept themain franchise fresh.

goblaa

the main franchise has always been the same. find the princess because she's been kidnapped again. there's really not much nintendo can do for the franchise. essentially what nintendo is doing for the main franchise is giving a rundown house a new coat of paint. sure the paint makes it look a little better, but it doesn't fix the main problems of the house. the house can still fall given enough time or or a strong breeze.

No, no, no, no, no. 100% wrong. They are not coats of paint, they are redefining the gameplay at its core every time. Mario games are not like PS3/360 action games which are essentially last gen games but prettier.

you really want to bring up last gen games with prettier graphics? really? nintendo didn't redefine the gameplay (except for smg) they refined it.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

1) I think the fact that you make an exception for Gears and not Mario is kind of weird. I mean, Mario is action-packed in its own way, so why not make an exception for it as well? It makes more sense to excuse both because they both don't focus on story.

2)I know there was alot more to it than simply completing goals in level, but that proves my point. :P

3) An M-rated Mario would be awkward. It wouldn't gel right with Mario conceptually. I don't think developers should make things M rated for the sake of it. It has to make sense.

Tragic_Kingdom7

1) i guess it just boils down to tastes.

2)i haven't played the game in almost 10 years but i remember it like it was yesterday.

3)that didn't stop nintendo from making that atrocious live-action mario movie in the 90's.

Oh God. I remember that movie. It was SO bad. Everything about it was so ugly and awkward.

But that movie really does prove why changing the tone of Mario doesn't really work.

That movie wasn't really "M-rated" material, so you can see how going even farther and makinga Mario game with mature content in it would be even more awkward.

what really sucks is that was the movie that launched the failed game-to-movie adaptations. that movie almost killed John Leguizamo's career.

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="cowgriller"]

wait, your tring to compare an action/platformer to a sports game? btw, there have been football games that change the formula. NFL Blitz. that was until the EA monopoly.

cowgriller

actually, your logic is faulty. sports games aren't about the story, hence why most of them don't have one. they are about playing the sport on a tv rather than going outside to play them in real life. btw, NFl Blitz was different than the madden games in that it was centered about breaking bones and having fun injuring the competition, not just scoring touchdowns.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"] Im comparing 1 game that's about raw gameplay and fun and totally not about story to another to show you how ridiculous you sound by saying the Mario formula hasn't changed because its story is relatively the same. And using your same faulty logic, NFL blitz wouldn't have been a change to the formula since it has pretty much has the same "story" as any other football game. Notsogr8one

actually, your logic is faulty. sports games aren't about the story, hence why most of them don't have one. they are about playing the sport on a tv rather than going outside to play them in real life. btw, NFl Blitz was different than the madden games in that it was centered about breaking bones and having fun injuring the competition, not just scoring touchdowns.

i have a bad tendency to over analyse things. great for school and real life, bad for system wars.

[QUOTE="Senor_Kami"]^ The games play radically different. That's way more than a slap of paint. You've totally ignored the gameplay, which is the most important thing. That's like saying every shooter where you're saving the world is the same because "You're saving the world from a threat." Some of the gameplay differences in Mario games are as big a difference as comparing a shooter like Metal Gear Solid 4 and a shooter like Halo 3 and saying they're just "slapping on a coat of paint" because the story in both is you saving the world. I think you're way off base man. To completely discredit the HUGE differences in gameplay is a pretty big logic error.cowgriller

there aren't that may mario games in the main franchise that are all that much different in terms of gameplay. mario 64 was huge in terms of gameplay changes. smg is also big in terms of gamplay due to the physics and the the fact that you could run around entire planets rather than on a flat surface. i'm not downplaying those at all. mario sunshine provided a different game dynamic but was not a part of the main franchise (at least i don't think it was). most devs are guilty of this but they try to add new gamplay elements be it in single player of multiplayer. also, most devs haven't been milking a franchise for the better part of 3 decades.

[QUOTE="Notsogr8one"][QUOTE="cowgriller"]

actually, your logic is faulty. sports games aren't about the story, hence why most of them don't have one. they are about playing the sport on a tv rather than going outside to play them in real life. btw, NFl Blitz was different than the madden games in that it was centered about breaking bones and having fun injuring the competition, not just scoring touchdowns.

cowgriller

i have a bad tendency to over analyse things. great for school and real life, bad for system wars.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="Notsogr8one"] Dude, it's just an analogy. You're going to far and connecting things that don't need to be connected. He's right. And sure, a sports game isn't story focused, but then again, neither are the Mario games.Nirron

i have a bad tendency to over analyse things. great for school and real life, bad for system wars.

sports get a pass because the purpose of the game is to make sure you team wins every match. they don't need story line to stay interesting, especially online play.

i never said gears gets a pass. i said that the action makes you forget that it lacks a deep story line. if you'd bought the limited edition set, the book it comes with explains the story though tbh, epic should have done that in the game. gears does have a plot but it's not that evident. this goes for mario. the difference is, like i said before, that mario's story is the same story that never changes. the princess is kidnapped, go defeat bowser and save her. nintendo never put focus on the story, they just left it the same. it's not lack of story. it's lack of changing the story.

sports get a pass because the purpose of the game is to make sure you team wins every match. they don't need story line to stay interesting, especially online play.

i never said gears gets a pass. i said that the action makes you forget that it lacks a deep story line. if you'd bought the limited edition set, the book it comes with explains the story though tbh, epic should have done that in the game. gears does have a plot but it's not that evident. this goes for mario. the difference is, like i said before, that mario's story is the same story that never changes. the princess is kidnapped, go defeat bowser and save her. nintendo never put focus on the story, they just left it the same. it's not lack of story. it's lack of changing the story.

cowgriller

Now we're getting deep into subjectivity though. The bolded statements could be applied to a Mario platformer by someone else. The variety of worlds, power-ups, and puzzle-type play could have the same effect as the action in Gears. I'm not really seeing how it's much different. IF I can apply these same principles to Mario, and please tell me why if I can't, then why do they need to alter the story if the majority is immersed and entertained enough by the gameplay elements that you forget the story hasn't really changed?

And for what it's worth, I actually agree that story is an important element in video games. It's what got me into RPGs in the early SNES/Genesis era, and keeps me going to them now.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

sports get a pass because the purpose of the game is to make sure you team wins every match. they don't need story line to stay interesting, especially online play.

i never said gears gets a pass. i said that the action makes you forget that it lacks a deep story line. if you'd bought the limited edition set, the book it comes with explains the story though tbh, epic should have done that in the game. gears does have a plot but it's not that evident. this goes for mario. the difference is, like i said before, that mario's story is the same story that never changes. the princess is kidnapped, go defeat bowser and save her. nintendo never put focus on the story, they just left it the same. it's not lack of story. it's lack of changing the story.

Nirron

Now we're getting deep into subjectivity though. The bolded statements could be applied to a Mario platformer by someone else. The variety of worlds, power-ups, and puzzle-type play could have the same effect as the action in Gears. I'm not really seeing how it's much different. IF I can apply these same principles to Mario, and please tell me why if I can't, then why do they need to alter the story if the majority is immersed and entertained enough by the gameplay elements that you forget the story hasn't really changed?

And for what it's worth, I actually agree that story is an important element in video games. It's what got me into RPGs in the early SNES/Genesis era, and keeps me going to them now.

gears has more action than mario, but it also may be more due to it's adult content. i also said this before, it's a matter of tastes. the reason i feel nintendo should alter mario's story is to give the gamer something new, something that could be more intersting and not feel like the same game in a different setting. that's why i originally gave the metaphor of the mario franchise being a rundown house with new paint. sure you could give it new graphics, sure you improve the gameplay, but if you don't changed the story after 25 years, it feels like your playing the same game over and over again and all the improvements you put in the game feel minor because of it.

If they started injecting Mario games with story, then I would quit playing mario games. In fact, to me, galaxy's only big flaw was the needless story.

If they started injecting Mario games with story, then I would quit playing mario games. In fact, to me, galaxy's only big flaw was the needless story.

goblaa

I love Mario 1,2,3, Galaxy, Sunshine, Marion RPG and Mario World, but come on man...

You cant look away from all the Mario sports games,etc..

[QUOTE="goblaa"]

If they started injecting Mario games with story, then I would quit playing mario games. In fact, to me, galaxy's only big flaw was the needless story.

Danm_999

Keep story out of my pure plataformer. If you want to have story on a Mario game go play the Mario's RPGs.

"where does mario go next?" really after galaxy (yes I watch zero punc.)

[QUOTE="Nirron"]

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

sports get a pass because the purpose of the game is to make sure you team wins every match. they don't need story line to stay interesting, especially online play.

i never said gears gets a pass. i said that the action makes you forget that it lacks a deep story line. if you'd bought the limited edition set, the book it comes with explains the story though tbh, epic should have done that in the game. gears does have a plot but it's not that evident. this goes for mario. the difference is, like i said before, that mario's story is the same story that never changes. the princess is kidnapped, go defeat bowser and save her. nintendo never put focus on the story, they just left it the same. it's not lack of story. it's lack of changing the story.

cowgriller

Now we're getting deep into subjectivity though. The bolded statements could be applied to a Mario platformer by someone else. The variety of worlds, power-ups, and puzzle-type play could have the same effect as the action in Gears. I'm not really seeing how it's much different. IF I can apply these same principles to Mario, and please tell me why if I can't, then why do they need to alter the story if the majority is immersed and entertained enough by the gameplay elements that you forget the story hasn't really changed?

And for what it's worth, I actually agree that story is an important element in video games. It's what got me into RPGs in the early SNES/Genesis era, and keeps me going to them now.

gears has more action than mario, but it also may be more due to it's adult content. i also said this before, it's a matter of tastes. the reason i feel nintendo should alter mario's story is to give the gamer something new, something that could be more intersting and not feel like the same game in a different setting. that's why i originally gave the metaphor of the mario franchise being a rundown house with new paint. sure you could give it new graphics, sure you improve the gameplay, but if you don't changed the story after 25 years, it feels like your playing the same game over and over again and all the improvements you put in the game feel minor because of it.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="Nirron"]

Now we're getting deep into subjectivity though. The bolded statements could be applied to a Mario platformer by someone else. The variety of worlds, power-ups, and puzzle-type play could have the same effect as the action in Gears. I'm not really seeing how it's much different. IF I can apply these same principles to Mario, and please tell me why if I can't, then why do they need to alter the story if the majority is immersed and entertained enough by the gameplay elements that you forget the story hasn't really changed?

And for what it's worth, I actually agree that story is an important element in video games. It's what got me into RPGs in the early SNES/Genesis era, and keeps me going to them now.

princeofshapeir

gears has more action than mario, but it also may be more due to it's adult content. i also said this before, it's a matter of tastes. the reason i feel nintendo should alter mario's story is to give the gamer something new, something that could be more intersting and not feel like the same game in a different setting. that's why i originally gave the metaphor of the mario franchise being a rundown house with new paint. sure you could give it new graphics, sure you improve the gameplay, but if you don't changed the story after 25 years, it feels like your playing the same game over and over again and all the improvements you put in the game feel minor because of it.

well excuse me for wanted games to be more than shallow button mashers and platformers.

[QUOTE="Mr_Matthews"]

Anyone who bashes the core Mario games is deliberately being dense.

cowgriller

wow. way to flame me without mentioning my name. how about adding something constructive to the argument or even the topic instead of trolling and flaming?

Actually, that had nothing to do with you. I just read the thread title and the opening post and then made my comment.

But, if you want me to elaborate a little, I will.

The Mario series is so well-made that it's encroaching on "fact" territory rather than "opinion." Lately it's become excruciatingly trendy to just go "pssh . . . Mario sucks," which is IMO so ridiculous and unfounded that only the most pigheaded Sony/MS fanboys can actually claim to believe that.

Edit: now that I've gone back and read a few of your posts, I can see why you thought I was talking about you (and to be honest you are exactly the kind of person I was referring to).

Just because a game has sequels doesn't mean it has bad sequels. Just about every single Mario game (and again, I'm talking about the core series here) has become one of the best of it's generation: Super Mario 3, Super Mario World, Super Mario 64, Mario Sunshine, Mario Galaxy.

Yes, but I don't really mind.

I mean look how many 2d Mario's there are that all play and look nearly exactly the same, but it doesn't stop me enjoying them.